Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Holograms Help Protect Super Bowl

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sun Feb 05, 2006 05:11 PM
from the three-inches-to-your-left-and-straight-ahead dept.
Security Software Hardware
Apache4857 writes to tell us CNet is reporting that Homeland Security agents monitoring the Superbowl will be doing so in 3D. Using streams from two cameras, the LifeVision 3D system is able to project images onto a 20-inch screen that is equipped with a depth tube. This depth tube makes images appear to rise 30 inches off the screen and sink 30 inches into the screen allowing real world volumes and distances to be displayed accurately. Using this system security officials will be able to search sidewalks, monitor faces, and even peer under vehicles.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Hardware: Military Testing WMD Sensors at Super Bowl 176 comments
Lam1969 writes "Members of the Michigan National Guard will be at the Super Bowl on Sunday to deploy 'sensor fusion', a real-time, IP-based wireless technology that combines readings from portable and fixed devices that can potentially detect terrorist threats. While sensors capable of detecting chemical, biological, or radiological threats have been used at previous Super Bowls, the readings had to be communicated by radio between different security personnel. Sensor fusion automatically takes readings from the devices and uploads them to a central, secure Web server, where security staff anywhere can monitor conditions at the event. From the article: 'The software uses open standards and is open-source, based on the OSGi Service Platform, which is a standardized, component-oriented computing environment for networked services. OSGi allows networked devices to be managed from anywhere in the world, while allowing software to be installed, updated or removed on the fly while the device is operating.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Holograms Help Protect Super Bowl 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • And in related news (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:16PM (#14647214)
    Jem and the Holograms will perform at the half-time show.

  • Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crass25 (884537) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:16PM (#14647217)
    We've all been waiting for this for a long time. I've heard of speakers like kurzeil using similiar technology to give speeches across the world. Now how long till this replaces standard tv?
    • Exactly how will this miracle of 3d vision, enable anybody to see anything they couldn't see in 2D. Additionally, what aspect of this 3d viewing device makes a camera capture video "underneath cars" and crap like that. What a bunch of bullshit. I don't like my money going to shit like this. I don't care how good it makes those sheep feel.

  • But still... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imsabbel (611519) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:16PM (#14647218)
    this isnt a hologram.
    (i know hologram sounds cool, but you cannot call any crap that has some stereoscopic view that way)
    • You're right. They should have used Arnold Rimmer instead.

      • Re:No lasers mentioned. (Score:5, Informative)

        by JohnFluxx (413620) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:49PM (#14647337)
        I am a holographic engineer.

        This is not a hologram because it is not creating an interference pattern. No phase information is stored.

        To make a real hologram, you do need a monochromatic light source. Before lasers they used various lamps (mercury lamp etc) that illuminate at specific wavelengths. This does kinda work, but has a very short coherence length so is bad for making analogue holograms (a hologram of an actual object). Quite possibly a lamp could be used for copying holograms or for digital holography.

  • 3-D viewing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:16PM (#14647220)
    Maybe the agents just want to view the wardrobe malfunctions in 3-D.
  • I'd still prefer it if they had a couple of battalions of actual human beings out there. I doubt that the cost / benefit analysis has been done for this. Probably just makes people think they are being watched which will either make them feel secure or vindicated about their Orwellian nightmares. They'll all be checking out womens cleavages anyway...
    • I somewhat agree. If the DHS has to even be there in the first place, plain-clothes officers would make much more sense.

      I think that you're right, too that this is how an Orwellian nightmare begins at least. It begins when it makes people feel secure. And cozy. And it ends when... well, I don't know if it ends.
    • I doubt that the cost / benefit analysis has been done for this.

      A cost/benefit analysis was done and we found that this project is very wortwhile (to us)!

      James Fischbach,
      CEO of Intrepid Defense & Security Systems

  • What a profitable use of funds... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by paulthomas (685756) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:19PM (#14647228) Journal
    I think this is a really good use of funds. Well, at least I would if I too were feeding at the trough.

    Best,
    Paul

  • 2D works for Big Ben (Score:3, Funny)

    by cwebb1977 (650175) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:19PM (#14647229) Homepage
    The two-dimensional thing called offensive line protects Roethlisberger well enough. Who needs 3D?

  • I don't get it (Score:5, Funny)

    by g253 (855070) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:19PM (#14647234) Homepage
    This is massively cool and all, but how is it helpful to peer under vehicles? You don't need 3D for that, and 3D won't help if the cameras are too high above ground... Anyway, they'll just use it to peer under skirts, like we would.

    • Homeland Security Purchase Order (Score:5, Funny)

      by sabNetwork (416076) on Sunday February 05 2006, @06:34PM (#14647466)
      Sir, uh, we need $150,000 for a holographic 3D TV to watch the Superbowl on. For uh, national security.

      Oh yeah, and... we need $1,000 for a large order of chicken wings. Those bad guys might try to poison those. We want to be the first to know.

      And some beer. No reason for that one, just thought I'd ask.

      --

  • Cool tech, but.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vengeance_au (318990) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:20PM (#14647236) Homepage Journal
    What the hell is this technology doing being deployed in a security role? The rule is : ALL COOL TECH IS DEVELOPED FOR PORN! It then trickles down into other mundane uses, like saving our lives.

  • Thank God! (Score:5, Funny)

    by RyatNrrd (662756) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:20PM (#14647237) Homepage Journal
    Nothing is too elaborate to protect us from Janet's Terror-Boobs!

  • Cost (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CosmeticLobotamy (155360) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:21PM (#14647239)
    I only skimmed the article, so maybe I missed it, but what are taxpayers paying for this system that still will not stop someone from strapping a ring of explosives under their coat?

  • Under vehicles, ya right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stalke (20083) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:21PM (#14647241)
    Even if they can "pear under vehicles", they won't have any additional information that is available on the video screen. The advantage with a 3D environment is have a better perception of what the 2D image is recording. It doesn't provide any additional information (unless one of those cameras is infrared or better yet, baggage scanner from an airport).

  • Gosh, how terribly impressive! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imipak (254310) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:21PM (#14647242) Journal
    but, astonishing as it sounds, terrorists watch TV, too. No doubt the people physically at the Superbowl are a little bit safer (and probably feel a bit safer, as well) for all this techno. Sadly, however, the hypothetical station-wagon full of stereotypical evil bearded Muslim fundamentalists (possibly with swords between their teeth and eyepatches? Who dares imagine what shapes the great American subconscious dreams...) - anyway, they're going to screech to a halt in a cloud of rubber. "Mustapha, you son of an infidel! The place is swarming with cops. Curses!!!!!!" *twirls moustache furiously for a moment* "I know, we'll do it next Saturday, at the Denver Earthworms vs. Seattle Turnipfarmers game, instead. Bwaa,hahahahaha!"

    Net result in security: nil.

    Bruce Schneier has some excellent things to say about "security" measures that defend against movie-plot threats. If you don't read Crypto-Gram yet, go sign yourself up, and learn how counter-intuitive reality can be.

    (You might also think about how little you should trust your own intuition, and then deduce things about people who boast of theirs... but I don't want to interfere with domestic political matters :)

    • Re:Gosh, how terribly impressive! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by StikyPad (445176) on Sunday February 05 2006, @07:14PM (#14647582) Homepage
      Sort of like "I know burgalars are just going to come in through the windows, so I don't lock my doors." Other sentiments along those lines include:

      "There's no point patching XP; any real hacker will just discover a new exploit."
      "Why bathe? I'm just going to get dirty again!"
      "No point saving this money when I'm just going to spend it eventually anyway!"

      I mean really, when you get down to it, the only thing police do is clean up after crimes; they almost never prevent them. We could save tons of money if we just abolished law enforcement.

      It's impossible to prevent every eventuality, but if you can reasonably implement measures to stop or deter most of the obvious ones, there's no reason not to. Conversely, it doesn't make sense to pour resources into preventing unlikely attacks. Should we set up a grid underground to prevent someone from tunneling in? Equip the stadium with rotary blades in case it needs to make a quick getaway? With finite resources, you have to apply them toward preventing the most obvious scenarios, and then work your way toward less the less likely/feasible options. And unless security is priceless to you, you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns. The whole reason people are upset about the PATRIOT Act, NSA spying, etc. is because they believe it's too high of a price to pay for security. But apparently you disagree.
        • Right. As you may have heard, there was a little incident about, oh, 4 and a half years ago, and ever since it's been mass hysteria. That's probably why he chose to use the word "perpetuate" rather than "instigate," although it could also just be a happy coincidence.
  • The Super Bowl is a game played by privately owned teams. It brings in hundreds of millions in revenue for the NFL from advertising.

    Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security. Or is the NFL technically a "foreign country"?

    • Re:Corporate Welfare (Score:5, Insightful)

      by green pizza (159161) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:31PM (#14647279) Homepage
      Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security.

      Because tax-paying Americans are the vast majority of those attending the Super Bowl, which is held here on our homeland, in the United States of America.

      Put another way, if there is an emergency at your local shopping mall, it's the local taxpayer-supported police and fire departments that will come to help. The mall rent-a-cops are only there as first responders and as a first line of defense. The local taxpayer-supported agencies do all of the real work, including booking/charging teenage petty theft.
        • The Super Bowl gets extra protection for the same reason why the Statue of Liberty gets more protection then the local diner. A suicide bomber probably could kill more people at the local diner when it is packed, but the Statue of Liberty is a far more likely target.

          You can't stop all attacks everywhere. You can make the most likely targets more of a pain in the ass to hit. The Super Bowl is a big obvious target. It is an iconic American event. It has nothing to do with the advertising space and everyt
    • The way security gets paid for, is usually laid out as part of the haggling when a stadium is first built.

      Part of it security costs are normally paid by the National Football League and part by the City the stadium is in.

      So, to answer your question directly, the reason "taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game" is because when the stadium was built in Chicago, it was probably part of the agreement.

      I bet Chicago is also getting State and Federal funds earmarked for anti-terrorism efforts too.

      La
    • Certain high profile events such as the Olympics, political conventions and the super-bowl are protected by the US secret service.

      "When an event is designated a National Special Security Event, the Secret Service assumes its mandated role as the lead agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan."

      details here [secretservice.gov]

  • Scant on details (Score:3, Insightful)

    by paulthomas (685756) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:27PM (#14647262) Journal
    The article makes this technology look like some otherwordly system for perception; they specifically cite Star Wars. My first question was how effective this could be. The article was very scant on technical details: When you're constructing 3D images from multiple view points, you aren't probably doing too much to improve the overall resolution of the image. And, unless you are starting with very high resolution cameras to begin with (and ones with coordinated zoom capabilities), I suspect that what you get is a very expensive and cool looking toy without enough detail to actually be of any help.

    Best
    Paul

  • B*lls**t (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scdeimos (632778) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:29PM (#14647270)
    "For the military, it can offer much better facial recognition," Fischbach said. "Instead of looking at a two-dimensional photo, you're looking at an entire head."
    Anyone who's worked on stereoscopic vision (which is all that this is) will tell you this is crap. With a pair of cameras mounted like "eyes" (5-15cm apart) you're still only seeing one side of the object. The depth information is extremely helpful in feature extraction, but you're still only seeing one side of the object.

  • Terrorists obviously want to attack the Superbowl (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:35PM (#14647288)
    because we think it is important. So we pour millions of dollars in taxpayer funded security when the terrorists might as well go to the basketball game next door (or a mall) to do their dirty work. Not only is it easier but we end up buying useless 3D remote cameras to look under cars. I swear the government has been watching too much TV about govt. super agents.
  • or a new niche of Up Skirts.
    • You bring up a good point. When they say peer under, I suspect they mean look straight through as if laying on the ground twenty feet away. Now, that's not exciting.

      You are not going to see the undercarriage of a car, or of a skirt-donning femme. As Stevie Wonder put it, you can't turn nothing into something... Without some vantage point from a camera actually on the ground looking up, you can infer nothing and cannot create the image of the underside of the target.

      This sounds like a severe case of secur

  • Hologram? (Score:4, Informative)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:40PM (#14647308) Homepage Journal
    Looking at the rather skimpy article, it doesnt appear to be a hologram, any more then the special effects were in the movie it references.

    holograms *require* interferrence patterns.. i dont see that happening with this product.

  • Terror defense (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:48PM (#14647333)
    Require everyone to eat a strip of bacon before they're allowed in

  • Free PR = They gave it to them to use for free (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Sunday February 05 2006, @06:44PM (#14647495)
    I'm sure the security team did not buy it. Instead this Press release was given out, using the NFL and Superbowl as some sort of legitimizing example of in the field use.

    I'm almost certain that it is sitting there, turned off... with 3 beers sitting on it.

  • Peering under cars? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whoda (569082) on Sunday February 05 2006, @08:38PM (#14647780) Homepage
    Peering under cars from cameras that are above head level, and presumably much higher up than that? I must say, that is some pretty impressive technology there.

    Funny how the article linked says NOTHING AT ALL about peering under cars. So, is it a sensationalist submitted headline? Something the editor made up and added? A line from a different article? What?

  • This thread is useless without pics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Digital Vomit (891734) on Sunday February 05 2006, @09:40PM (#14647947) Homepage Journal
    I love it how so many news sites talk about some interesting visual thing on the internet -- a visual medium -- yet fail to provide fscking pictures!

    "3D holographic imaging! Take our word for it: it looks cool!"

  • Referees should have used it tonight... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JFMulder (59706) on Sunday February 05 2006, @11:24PM (#14648322)
    There were quite a few dodgy referee decisions in that game. I can't believe they gave Pittsburgh that first touchdown. The ball never even touched the line. And no, I'm not a Seattle fan, I'm not even from the States.

  • Super Bowl Commercials (Score:4, Informative)

    by imuffin (196159) on Monday February 06 2006, @09:41AM (#14650466) Homepage
    The only good thing about the Super Bowl is the commercials. [tubespot.com]

    And you can download them from this site, too.

    • Protecting an obvious target (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shihar (153932) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:30PM (#14647275)
      It is a fucking high porfile ball game with tens of thousands of people attending it and being watched by hundreds millions of people. If you want to kill a lot of people and have it seen live on TV around the world, the Super Bowl is the place to do it. You couldn't pick a better target in terms of mass death and live coverage. They are not protecting it because they love football. They are protecting it because it is a big gleeming target with a bulls eye on it.

      • Re:Protecting an obvious target (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Firehed (942385) on Sunday February 05 2006, @06:27PM (#14647445) Homepage
        Anywhere that there's an attack will be on TV pretty quick. I dunno about you, but I didn't know of the existance of a WTC-channel prior to the 9/11 attacks. And boy did that get media coverage. Why'd they choose there? Not only because that it stood for things they're against, but because you have an incredibly high density of civilians. They could just as easily blow up a concert where you also have a high density of people, and it'll get just as much coverage. The only reason they'd target the Super Bowl in the first place is because we're so fired up over security, and it would help thier cause to demonstrate our incompetence if they were to succeed. Remember that whacko at the Olympics a while back? There's a huge density of people there *because* it's so popular. Can you think of a more densely-populated thing to attack than a massive sporting event or a skyscraper office building?

        Attacks don't follow the media; the media follows the attacks. If they happen to be in the same place at the same time, it's just more convenient for both of them. If anything, this would be the day to go the capitol building or something, just because security's all scrabling over the game.

    • Re:oh, the irony... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Shihar (153932) on Sunday February 05 2006, @05:35PM (#14647290)
      ...that an icon of the engine of the mass entertainment and distraction that has rendered public discourse pureile is being monitored by the kinds of devices that public discourse, if it existed, would profoundly reject.

      You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly. The Super Bowl is a big and obvious target. It is a target being attended by thousands and watched by hundreds of millions. Any terrorist worth his salt would hit the Super Bowl if they had the ability.

      We accept cameras in banks because they are obvious targets for criminals. You honestly believe that people would not accept monitoring an even larger target with a significantly higher capacity for the loss of human life?

      Really people. Just think before you post something silly like this. I imagine that everyone walking into the Super Bowl realizes that they are going to be on a camera, and I imagine that a super majority of them are glad that police, cameras, and all other manner of monitoring devices are trying to pick through the crowd to find the one crazy nut job with a bomb and a need to get some air time. If you believe otherwise, you are deeply out of touch with reality.

        • Re:oh, the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Shihar (153932) on Sunday February 05 2006, @06:57PM (#14647517)
          Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth.

          Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth.

          This same argument could be used to point to all policing as being worthless. Why bother having police when you and I both know to be truth that the criminals will find some way to avoid the police?

          It is a bullshit argument.

          There is a will out there by someone to blow something up in the Super Bowl. If you think your average Iraq insurgent who is more then willing to blow himself up in a crowd of Iraqi Shiites praying in a Mosque wouldn't think twice about blowing himself up in the middle of the Super Bowl, you are delusional. This isn't paranoia, this is a simple reality. There are those out there that would inflict harm upon US civilians (rightly or wrongly) if they had the means. The point is that they don't have the means. Simply crossing from Iraq to the US undetected with explosives enough to do damage puts this well out of the capacity of most insurgents. If there was no security set up to prevent such things, they would simply send a crate of explosives, jump in an air plane, and fly over. It isn't good morality that keeps these people from doing so. They just simply don't have the means to cross between countries armed without raising red flags.

          In order to prevent such attacks, you need to make the means of attacking as difficult as possible. Certainly you can't stop everything, but you can set the bar so high as to turn off all but the most dedicated and will organized. The means of making such an attack improbable starts at monitering the people and material that enter the nation. The final obstacle of course is Super Bowl security.

          Now, that isn't to say that there is NO means of attack, simply that the means of attack has been made exponentially harder. Instead of shipping over explosive via freight and people via airplane, loading everyone up with a suicide vest, and simply walking in, they need to devise an increasingly more complex and risky plan. They need to some how illicitly get people and materials into the nation. Once inside the nation, they need to find a method of delivery to get it past security. At each barrier erected, they need to take more extreme actions to achieve their ends. In this case, they probably would not ship explosives in as the barrier to shipping in explosives is too high, to traceable, and too risky. They might try and make a homemade bomb. For that they would need to ship in a bomb expert and potentially raise red flags buying materials. They would then need a delivery method. Simply walking in is a near impossibility, especially if they want live television coverage. They might instead opt to rent a light plain to deliver the explosives. In doing this they need to forge identities, learn to fly, load the explosives, take off without arousing suspicion, and enter restricted air space. Finally, they need to devise some method of detonation that might or might not work. Further, this attack would be less effective because of the limited amount of explosives they could deliver. If they were simply allowed to ship people from wherever they wanted and enter into the stadium as they pleased, they could merrily bring over dozens of armed people.

    • Re:Problem. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Sunday February 05 2006, @06:35PM (#14647470)
      Persumably anything not equipped to do "holograms" can just use one camera feed or the other or both. That, of course, assumes that we are allowed to see the footage from the security tapes if there's an attack. Really the news'll prolly be limited to whatever cell phone cameras get, unless they catch it on their cameras.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.